I N TH E CO UR T OF A PP EALS S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA D I V I S I O N T WO M I CH A EL M EI N ER S,

Pet i t i onerE m pl oy ee,
v. T HE I NDUS T RI AL CO M M I S S I ON OF AR I Z ONA, R e sp o n d e n t, UNI VE RS I T Y OF AR I Z ONA,

R esp o n d en t E m p loy er, RI S K M ANAGE M E NT / S T AT E OF AR I Z ONA, R esp o n d en t I n su rer. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2 C A
- I C 2006- 0005

DEPA RTM ENT B O P I N I O N

S P E CI AL AC T I ON - I NDUS T RI AL CO M M I S S I ON

I C A C l ai m N o. 93098305955 I ns ur erN o. 93- 14431 T hom as A
. I r es on, A dm i ni s t r at i ve Law J udge

AWARD S E T AS I DE O CT 27 2006 

### F I L E D BY CLE RK

C OU RTOF A PP E A LS DI VIS ION TWO2

Ra b i n o v i t z & A s s o c i a t e s , P
. C. B yB e rn a rd I. R a b in o v itz
T he I ndus t r i al C om m i s s i on of A r i zona B yL au ra L
. M cG rory
T err yG oddar d, A r i zona A t t or neyG ener al B yM ar i a M or l acc i T ucs on A t t orneyforPet i t i onerE m pl oy ee
P h o e n ix A t t orneyforR es pondent

T ucs on A tto rn e y s f

o r R e sp o n d e n ts E m pl oy erand I ns ur er
B R A M M E R , J udge. ¶1 I n t hi s s t atut or y s peci al act i on, pet i t i oner empl oy ee M i chae l M ei ner s cont ends th e a d m in istra tiv e law ju d g e (A L J) e rre d b yre d u c in g h is w o rk e rs’ c o m p e n s a tio n b e n e f its f o llo w in g a h e a rin g o n th e p e tit io n h e h a d f iled f o r re a rra n g e m e n t. W e c o n c lu d e re s ju d ica ta pr i nci pl es pr ecl ude t he A L J fr om r educi ng M ei ner s ’ s di s abi l i t ycompensa t i on and s etas i de t he aw ar d. Fac t ualand Pr oc e dur alBackg r ound ¶2 “O n r evi ew of an I ndus t ri al C om m i s s i on aw ar d, w e mustvi ew the evi dence in th e lig h t m o s t f

a v o ra b le to s u s ta in in g th e In d u s tr ia l C o m m is s io n ’s f in d in g s a n d a w a rd .” R o b erts v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 162 A r i z. 108, 110, 781 P. 2d 586, 588 ( 1989)
. M ei ner s i nj ur ed hi s back i n 1 9 9 3 whi l e e mpl o y e d b yt h e r e s p o n d e n te mpl o y e r , t h e Uni v e r s i t yo f Ar i zona. T he i nj ur yaff

ect ed hi s low er b ack and l eftl eg. T he U ni ver s i t y ’ s i ns ur er , the St at e of A r i z o n a , a c cept ed hi s cl ai m forw or ker s ’ compensa t i on benef i t s and cl os ed the cl ai m i n 1996,S ect i on 23 -1044 (F) s t at es: 1 [ A ]n a w a rd o f c o m p e n sa tio n . . . s h a ll b e su b jec t to chan ge in .
. . t he fo l l ow i ng even t s: 1. U pon a s how i ng of a c hange i n t he phy s i cal condi t i on of the empl oy ee s ubs equentt o s uch fi ndi ngs and aw ar d ar i s i ng outof t he i nj ur yr es ul t i ng i n t he red uct i on ori ncr eas e of the e m p lo y e e ’s e a rn in g c a p a c ity. 2. U pon a s how i ng of a r educt i on i n the ea r ni ng capa ci t yof the e m p lo y e e a risin g o u t o f su c h in ju ry w h e re th e re is no c h a n g e in t he empl oy ee’ s phy s i cal condi t i on, s ubs equentt o t he fi ndi ngs and aw ar d. 3. U pon a show i ng thatthe empl oy ee’ s earni ng capa ci t yhas i ncr eas ed s ubs equentt o s uch fi ndi ngs and aw ar d. 3 aw ar di ng hi m m ont hl ydi s abi l i t ybenef i t s of $345. 16, fi ndi ng he had s us t ai ned a pe r m anent im p a ir m e n t. ¶3 In 2 0 0 4 , M eine rs fil ed a pe ti ti o n to r eo p en p u rsua n t t o A
. R
. S
. § 2 3 -10 6 1 (H ),
w hi ch the A L J deni ed fol l ow i ng a hea r i n g . M eine r s had al s o fi l ed a pe t i t i on for
re a rra n g e m e n t p u rsu a n t to A .R .S . § 2 3 -1 0 4 4 (F ), w h ich th e In d u stria l C o m m iss io n sim ilarly 1 d e n ied . M e in e rs r e q u e ste d a h e a rin g , at w h ich h e tes tifie d th a t, du e to a c o n g e n ital d e f e c t, h is l o w er righ t l eg w as u n d erd ev elop ed an d h is r igh t fo o t and an k le “ d o [ ] no t w o rk
corr ect l y . ” H e s t at ed thathe had begun havi ng s i gni fi cant pai n i n hi s r i ghtl ow erback a nd ri gh tl eg ap proxim at el yt w o y ears aft er hi s back inj ury . M ei ners r easone d thi s pai n w as a
r es ul t of hi s i ncr eas ed us e of hi s r i ghtl eg t o compensa t e forthe bac k i nj uryaff ect i ng hi s l eft l eg. M ei ner s t es t i fi ed he w as unabl e t o w or k, coul d nots i tors t and form or e than t en mi nut es4

w i t houtpai n, and thathe “ha [s ] t o [l i e] dow n s ever al t i m es a day
. ” H e agr eed the def ectof h i s r i g h tl e g d i d n o t“ i n t e r f e r e i n a n y w a y w i t h [ h i s ] a b i l i t y t o w o r k ” b e f o r e h i s b a c k i n

j u r y. ¶4 M ei ner s ’ s t r eat i ng phy s i ci an, D r . H arvey M aks vyt i s , t es t i fi ed M ei ner s ’ s back i nj ur y“cr eat ed a c hr oni c and e xace rbat i ng” condi t i on, and t he congeni t al defe ct s i n hi s r i ght leg p re v e n ted h im f

ro m c o m p e n sa tin g f

o r it. M a k s v ytis sta ted M e in e rs’ s a ttem p ts to compensa t e forhi s back i nj ur yr es ul t ed i n pai n and w eakne s s i n hi s r i ght s i de, w hi ch, i n tur n,
w o u ld “e x ac erb ate h is l ef t si d e.” M ak sv yti s also test ifi ed M eine rs w as “ total[l y ] disab l[ed ]”
a n d th a t h e c o u ld n o t en g a g e “ in a n ytyp e o f g a in f u l e m p lo ym e n t” w ith o u t “ s ig n if ic a n t p a in .” ¶5 Dr
. Ku r tS c h r o e d e rt e s t i f i e d M e i n e r s c o u l d wo r k a f u l l

- t i me j o b wi t h s o me p h y sical re str ict ion s. S ch roe d er a lso stated that a 2 0 0 4 m ag n eti c re so n an ce im ag ing (M R I) of M ei ner s ’ s back r evea l ed “ther e had be en r es ol ut i on of [the] s i gni fi cant di s c ruptur e, ” and th a t th e re m a in in g a b n o rm a litie s in h is b a c k w e re “ f ro m a m e d ic a l tr e a tm e n t s ta n d p o i n t[ ,] beni gn. ” Schr oedert es t i fi ed i t w as “extr emel y unl i kel y ” t hat M ei ner s ’ s pai n i n hi s r i ghtl eg
w as r el at ed t o hi s “l eft

- s i ded di s c ruptur e. ” ¶6 A ft er hear i ng l abor m arket t es t i m ony fr om bot h par t i es , t he A L J adopt ed the tes tim o n yo f

S c h r o e d e r a n d th e U n iv e rsity ’s la b o r m a rk e t ex p e rt, fin d in g M e in e rs “ c o u ld
w ork i n a cust om er service or res ervat i on t ype p osi t i on on a full t i m e basi s. ” T he A L J al so ad o p ted th e U n iversity ’s l ab o r m ark et ex p ert’s salaryca lculati o n s an d red u ce d M eine rs’s
aw ard t o $ 32 9. 91
. U po n revi ew , t he A L J af fi rm ed i t s d eci si on reduci ng M ei ners’ s benef i t s. T h is s ta tu to ry sp e c ia l a c tio n f o llo w e d
.T he rul e thatissue s not“cl ear l yr ai s ed” i n the openi ng br i ef a r e w ai ved i s not 2 j ur i s di ct i onal , buti ns t ead i s a “pol i cyof j udi ci al r es t r aint
. ” C hi ldr es s B ui ck Co. v. O ’C o n n e ll , 1 9 8 A riz . 4 5 4 , ¶ 2 9 , 1 1 P .3 d 4 1 3 , 4 1 8 (A p p . 2 0 0 0 ). T h is p o licyis in ten d e d to 5 D i s cus s i on ¶7 “ W e w il l n o t se t as id e th e a w a rd if it i s b a se d u p o n a n yre a so n a b le i nt erpr et at i on of the evi dence
. ” R o b erts v. In d u s. C o m m ’n , 162 A r i z. 108, 110, 781 P. 2d 586, 588 ( 1989)
. B u t, w e “re v i ew al l ques t i ons of l aw de novo. ” B en a fi eld v

. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 1 9 3 A ri z. 53 1 , ¶ 1 1 , 9 7 5 P
. 2 d 1 2 1 , 1 2 5 (A p p . 1 9 9 8 ). ¶8 M e in e rs a rg u e s th e A L J’s re d u c tio n o f h is 1 9 9 6 a w a rd w a s an im p e rm iss ib le “col l at er al at t ack” on t hataw ar d beca us e i tw as “fi nal and r es j udi cat a. ” B eca us e the pet i t i on forr earran g em entati s s ue her e w as fi l ed byM ei ner s , notthe U ni ver s i t y , w e r eques t ed
s uppl ement al br i efi ng fr om t he p arti es o n w hetherthe A L J had the author i t yt o r educe M ei ner s ’ s aw ar d abs enta pet i t i on fi l ed bythe U ni ver s i t yr eques ti ng t hatr el i ef. T he U ni ver s i t yar gues i n i t s s uppl ement al br i ef thatM eine rs has w ai ved thi s i s s ue “bynot pr es ent i ng i ti n [hi s ] openi ng br i ef. ” See N es s v. W es t er n Sec. Li

f e I ns . C o. , 174 A r i z. 497, 502, 851 P. 2d 122, 127 (A p p . 1992)
. T he U ni ver s i t ycont ends t hi s i s nota ques t i on of
s u b je c t m a tte r ju ri s d ic tio n , w h ic h c a n n o t b e w a iv e d
. See Swi t cht enber g v. B r i m er , 171 A r i z. 77, 82, 828 P. 2d 1218, 1223 ( A pp. 1991)
. W e agr ee, and, as w e ex p lai n bel ow , i ti ns t ead i nvol ves appl i cat i on of the pr i nci pl e of r es j udi cat a. A lt h o u g h M ei ner s di d notr ai s e that i s s ue i n a cl ear , di r ect , and expr es s m anner , t he natur e of hi s ar gum ent s i n hi s openi ng br i ef
w a s s u f f icie n t n o tice to th e U n iv e rsity o f h is c o n ten tio n th a t th e A L J h a d lac k e d th e a u th o rity to re d u c e h is a w a rd
. M o re o v e r, th e U n iv e rsityf a iled to a d d re ss M e in e r s’s re s ju d ica ta 2a v o id su rp risin g th e p a rties b y“ d e c id in g th e ir c a se o n a n iss u e th e yd id n o t p re se n t” a n d to

pr eventt he cour t fr om “dec i di ng cas es w i t h no r es ear ch ass i s t ance oranal yt i cal i nputfr om t he part i es . ” I

d. N e ith e r co n c e rn is i m p lica ted h e re ; M e in e rs ra ise d th e iss u e , a lb e it i m perfect l y , and , as noted abo ve, w e request ed sup plem ental bri efi ng from the p art i es. T h a t re g u latio n p ro v id e s, in p e rtin e n t p a rt: 3 A
. A pet i t i on forr earr ang em ent orr eadj us t m entof c ompe ns a t i on fi l e d wi t h the C om m i s s i on un de rA
. R. S. 23- 1 0 4 4 ( F) s h a l l b e i n wr i t i n g . A f o r m i s a v a i l a b l e f

r om t he C o m m iss io n u p o n re q u e st. B
. A part yora part y ’ s author i zed r epr es ent ati v e sh al l s i gn a pet i t i on forr earr angementorr eadj us t m entand i ncl ude in t he pet i t i on: 1. A s t at ementof the bas i s upon w hi ch the re a rra n g e m e n t o rr e a d

ju s tm e n t o f

c o m p e n s a ti o n is s ought , and 2. D ocument at i on i n s upportof the pet i t i on. C. Th e p e t i t i o n s h a l l b e s i g n e d b y t h e e mpl o y e e o rt he emp loy ee’ s author i zed r epr es ent at i ve, t he empl oy er , or , i n the 6 ar gum ent s i n anyfas hi on i n i t s ans w er i ng br i ef. A l t houg h , in ourdi s cr et i on, “[s ] uch an
om i s s i on can be cons i der ed a c onfes s i on of err or , ” In re 19 96 Nissan Sen tra , 201 A r i z. 114, ¶ 7, 32 P
. 3d 39 , 42 (A pp . 20 01 ), w e decli ne to treati tas such h ere, and , accordingl y , add res s t he is sue on i t s m eri t s. ¶9 E ith e r a n e m p lo y e e o r e m p lo y e r m a yp e tit io n f o r re a rra n g e m e n t p u rsu a n t to § 23- 10 4 4 ( F)
. T he I ndus t r i al C om m i s s i on’ s r egul at i on, R 20- 5- 134, A r i z. A dm i n. C ode,
r equi r es t hatpet i t i on t o be a s i gned w r i t i ng s t at i ng “the basi s upon w hi ch the r earr angement of compensa t i on i s s ought ” and musti ncl ude s uppor t i ng documentati o n . W e fi nd no 3cas e of an i ns ur ance carr i er , by i t s author i zed r epr es ent at i ve, and s hal l i ncl ude a s t at ementof the bas i s upon w hi ch the r earr angemento f co m pens at i on i s s oughtacc om pani ed by s uppor t i ve document aryevi dence
. 7 pet i t i on by t he U ni ver s i t y i n t he re cor d m eet i ng t hes e re qui r ement s , nor di d i tr eques t , i n any of the pape r s i tfi l ed w i t h t he C om m i s s i on, oratt he hea r i ng, t hatM ei ner s ’ s aw ar d be
r educe d. ¶10 In i t s supplem ental bri ef, t he U niver sityargues G er m an v. I ndus tr i al C om m is s i on , 12 A r i z. A pp. 301, 469 P. 2d 867 ( 1970) , i s di s pos i t i ve of the q u esti o n of
w hether the A L J had author i t yt o r educe M ei ner s ’ s aw ar d. I n G er m an , the p eti ti o n er, di s s at i s fi ed w i t h the aw ar d he had r ece i ved fr om the I ndus t r i al C om m i s s i on , reque s t ed a h e a ri n g . I

d. at 303- 04, 469 P. 2d at869- 70. T he hea r i ng offi cerfound the pet i t i onerhad not
s u s ta in e d a c o m p e n s a b le in d u s tr ia l in ju ry a n d re s c in d e d th e a w a rd
. I d. at306, 469 P. 2d at 872. O n r evi ew , t he pet i t i onerar gued the hear i ng offi cerhad l acke d the author i t yt o r educe h is a w a rd
. S e e id
. T h e p e tit io n e r relie d o n In d u stria l C o m m iss io n R u le 3 8 , w h ich sta ted , in
r el evantpar t , t hat“[e ] verygr ound orcompl ai nt , ordefe ns e, t o s uch aw ar d or d ec isi o n not
s o s p e c if ie d in s u c h p e titio n [ f

o r h e a ri n g ]” is w a iv e d
. I d. a t3 0 5 , 4 6 9 P
. 2 d a t8 7 1
. He
r eas oned the rul e l i m i t ed the hea r i ng t o the t w o i s s ues he had r ai s ed i n hi s pet i t i on: “the r i ght t o fur t herm edi cal benef i t s . . . and the det erm i nat i on of the l os s of ea r ni ng capa ci t y . ” Id

. at 306, 469 P. 2d at872. ¶11 D iv isio n O n e o f th is c o u rt re

jec ted th a t ar g u m e n t an d d e ter m in e d R u le 3 8 d id
n o t “ a p p lyto a w a rd s w h ich h a v e n o t b e c o m e f in a l and w h i c h h a v e n o tb e e n p r e c e d e d b y a8

form al hear i ng, ” and, t hus , di d notpr ecl ude the hea r i ng o ff icer fr om deci di ng i s s ues not
ra is e d in th e p e titio n e r’ s p e titio n f o r h e a ri n g . I

d. at 307, 469 P. 2d at 873. T he courtr el i ed
on R us s el lv. I

ndus tr i alC om m is s i on , 1 0 4 A ri z . 5 4 8 , 4 5 6 P .2 d 9 1 8 (1 9 6 9 ), over r ul ed on other gr ounds by Pa rs o n s v . Be k i n s Fr e ight , 1 0 8 A ri z. 13 0 , 1 3 2 , 4 9 3 P
. 2 d 9 1 3 , 9 1 5 (19 7 2 ). In R u ss e ll , ours upr eme cour ts t at ed:

“[T] he gr ant i ng of a fir st m o ti on t o r ehea rt he aw ar d has t he eff ectof s et t i ng as i de orvaca t i ng t hataw ar d and w hen on reh ea ri n g th e ca u se o n it s m erit s, the s u b seq u en t aw ard s uper s edes t he form er . ” P et i t i oner ’ s t i m el ym ot i on t o r ehea rhad t he effec t of sett i ng as i de t he [pr evi ous ] aw ar d and opene d t he m at t erfor a ful l hear i ng on t he mer i t s . T he bur den of pr oof on pet i t i onerto e s t abl i s h a compens abl e di s abi l i t yr emai ned the s ame as pr i ort o t he i ni t i al aw ar d. I d. a t 5 5 3 , 4 5 6 P .2 d a t 9 2 3 , q u o ti n gW a m m a ck v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 83 A r i z. 321, 327, 320 P. 2d 9 5 0 , 9 5 4 (19 5 8 ). ¶12 T he U ni ver s i t ycont ends t hat , bas ed on G er m an and the fa ctt hatt he I ndus tr i al C o m m iss io n re

jec ted M e in e rs’ s p e tit io n f o r re a rra n g e m e n t w it h o u t a f o rm a l h e a rin g , h is
s ubs equent r eques t for a hear i ng on t hat pet i t i on “gave t he A L J the author i t yt o r evi ew t he iss u e o f p e rm a n e n t d isa b ili tyin its e n tiretya n d d e ter m in e w h e th e r p e rm a n e n t b e n e f its sh o u ld b e in c re a s e d , d e c re a s e d , o r le f t a s p re v io u s ly es ta b lis h e d .” W e d is a g re e . G er m an onl ys t ands fort he pr opos i t i on t hatan A L J m ayr educe orr es ci nd an i ni t i al aw ar d befor e i tbecomes f i n a l , u n c o n s t r a i n e d b yi s s u e s r a i s e d i n o ra b s e n tf r o m a p e t i t i o n e r ’ s r e q u e s tf o ra h e a r i ng. T he courti n G er m an sta ted th e p e tit io n e r “c o u ld h a v e let the [ in iti a l] a w a rd b e c o m e f in a l in
w h ic h e v e n t h e w o u ld h a v e b e e n s e c u re in th e a d ju d ic a tio n o f

a p e rm a n e n t p a rt ia l d is a b ility,” and l at er s ought addi t i onal benef i t s pur s uantt o a pet i t i on t o r eopen. 12 A r i z. A pp. at307,9

469 P. 2d at873. T he courtfur t hernot ed i tdi d not“conside r t he ef fec tof R u ss e ll upon C om m i s s i on R ul e 38 i n a s i tuat i on w her ei n ther e i s a pet i t i on fora r ehear i ng( notthe i ni t i al h ea ri n g ) w h ich p eti ti o n fo r reh e a rin g is ad d resse d to an aw ard w h ich w as e n tered af ter a form al hear i ng. ” Id

. Th u s , t h e c o u r td i d n o t s u g g e s t a p e t i t i o n f i l e d a f t e ra n a wa r d b e c a me fi nal w oul d s erve t o s et as i de orvaca t e thataw ar d and thus “open[ ] up t he w hol e ca s e [f or
r evi ew ] as a mat t erof r i ght
. ” Id

. M o reo v er, after German , D ivisi o n O n e o f th is co u rt d eterm ined that R u le 3 8 “is fu ll y ap p li ca b le to a p eti ti o n fo r reh ea ri n g . . . a n d
. . . R u s s e ll does notpr ecl ude i t s appl i cabi l i t y . ” A b o u n a d er v . Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 12 A r i z. A pp. 535, 538, 4 7 3 P .2 d 4 6 0 , 4 6 3 (1 9 7 0 ); see a lso F ish v

. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 12 A r i z. A pp. 486, 495, 472 P. 2d 9 7 , 1 0 6 (19 7 0 ) (“ R u ss e ll do es no t supersede R ule 38 i n s i tuati on s w herei n there i s a r equ est for a reheari ng i n rel at i on t o an aw ard, no t fi nal,
. . . enter ed aft er a form al heari ng . ” T hu s, “the issue s ca n b e li m it ed b ythe lan g u ag e se t fo rth in the p eti ti o n fo r reh ea ri n g . ”). ¶13 I n contr as tt o G er m an , M ei ner s ’ s o ri g ina l aw ar d w as ent er ed af t era hea r i ng and bec ame fi nal i n 1996. T hataw ar d det erm ined h is per m anentdi s abi l i t yr es ul t ed i n a for t y - t w o per centr educt i on i n hi s earni ng capa ci t y . “A ft erfi ndi ngs and an a w ar d ar e made, t he doctr i ne of r es j udi cat a o p er at es t o barr el i t i gat i on of i s s ues w hi ch w er e . . . deci ded at t hatpr ocee di ng. ” P im a C o u n ty B d

. o f Su p erv isors v
. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 149 A r i z. 38, 43, 716 P. 2d 407, 412 ( 1986)
. A ccor di ngl y , anyal t er at i on t o t hat aw ar d w oul d be cons t r ai ned byt he
s ta tu te s g o v e rn in g re o p e n in g a n d re a rr a n g e m e n t, § § 2 3 -1 0 6 1 (H ) a n d 2 3 -1 0 4 4 (F ). See P i ma C ou nty Bd

. of Supervis ors , 149 A r i z. at 43- 44, 716 P. 2d at 412- 13 ( r eopen a nd r earr angement statu tes are e x ce p ti o n s to d o c tr in e o f re s jud icata). U n li k e the rev iew o f a n init ial aw ardW e r ej ect t he U ni ver s i t y ’ s as s ert i on at or al ar gum ent t hat not i ce maybe i m pl i ed fr om 4 th e e v id e n c e p ro d u c e d in d isc o v e ry . T h a t e v id e n c e m a yre a so n a b lysu p p o rt a re d u c tio n in b e n e f its is n o t n o tic e th a t a p a rt yis a c tu a lly se e k in g it. See, e. g. , Mul l ane v. C entr alH anover B ank & Trus tC o. , 339 U
. S. 306, 314, 70 S
. C t . 652, 657 ( 1950) ( “A n el ement aryand fundament al r equi r ementof due pr oces s . . . i s not i ce r eas onabl ycal cul at ed, underal l t he ci r cumst ance s , t o appr i s e i nt er es t ed part i es of t he pendency of the ac t i on and af for d t hem an oppor tuni t yt o pr es ent t hei r obj ect i ons . ”)
. M or eover , evi dence pr oduced i n di s covery on one i s s u e ma yn o ta l wa y s mi r r o rt h e e v i d e n c e p r o d u c e d a ta h e a r i n g o n a d i f f e r e n ti s s u e , a n d we decl i ne t o adopta rul e thatw oul d r equi r e an a ppel l at e courtt o r evi ew document s pr oduced i n di s coveryon one i s s ue t o det erm i ne w hethert hey w er e s uffi ci entt o gi ve not i ce of di ffe r ent r el i ef a par t ym i ghts eek. 10 exami ned i n G er m an , § 23- 1044( F) does notcont empl at e de novo r evi ew of a f i nal aw ar d; i ti ns t ead onl yperm i t s m odi fi cat i on of thataw ar d on a s how i ng t he e m p loy ee’ s phy s i cal condi t i on orearni ng capa ci t yhas change d. ¶14 W e fi nd no author i t ys ugges t i ng an A L J m ayfi nd an empl oy ee’ s earni ng capa ci t yhas i ncr eas ed under§ 23- 1044( F) abs ent a p eti ti o n bythe ca r r i erorempl oy er
r eques t i ng s uch a d et erm i nat i on, ther ebypr ovi di ng not i ce t o t he empl oy ee a nd t he
o p p o rtu n ityto co n testthe re q u est. T h e o n lyissue b ef o re th e A L J w as w h ethe r M eine rs’s 4

earni ng capa ci t yhad bee n r educe d due t o a cha nge i n phy sical condi t i on orotherfac t or
ar i s i ng outof hi s co m p en sab le i nj ur y . A nd, as not ed above , t he U ni ver s i t ydi d notfi l e a p eti ti o n m ee ti n g the req u ir em en ts o f R 2 0 -5-1 3 4 , A ri z. A d m in. C o d e . S e e L a Wa l lv . P i ma C o u n ty Merit S

ys. C o m m ’n , 2 1 2 A ri z. 48 9 , ¶ 1 5 , 1 3 4 P
. 3 d 3 9 4 , 3 9 9 (A p p . 2 0 0 6 ) (“[A ]n admi ni s t r at i ve rul e has t he s ame effe ctand for ce as a st atut e. ”)
. T hus , w e di s agr ee w i th the U n iversityan d co n clud e the d o ctri n e o f res jud icata b arred the A L J fro m red u cing M eine rs’s
a w a rd
. See P i m a C ou nty Bd

. of Supervis ors , 149 A r i z. at 43, 716 P. 2d at412; s ee al s o C lay
v. A r iz. Intersc holas t i c Ass ’ n, I nc. , 1 6 1 A ri z. 47 4 , 4 7 6 , 7 7 9 P
. 2 d 3 4 9 , 3 5 1 (19 8 9 ) (“[A ]nT h e U n iversity also arg u ed that it is c o m m o n p rac ti ce fo r a n A L J to red u ce an aw ard 5 w hen an e m pl oy ee pe t i t i ons t o i ncr eas e i t , butcoul d notr eca l l anys peci fi c i ns t ance i n w hi ch that h ad o cc u rred , n o r are w e a w are o f a n y . M e in ers d isag ree d w ith the U n iversity ’s cont ent i on. I n any event , t he re cor d befor e us cont ai ns no evi dence of s uch pr act i ce. A nd, e v e n if th is p ra c tice w e re p e rv a siv e , tha t d o e s n o t m e a n it i s c o rre c t. 11 [ a d m in istra tiv e ] a g e n c ym u st f o llo w its o w n ru les a n d re g u latio n s; to d o o th e rw ise is
u n law f u l.”); Moder n I

ndus

. I nc. v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 1 2 5 Ar i z . 2 8 3 , 2 8 6
- 8 7 , 6 0 9 P. 2 d 9 8, 101- 02 ( A pp. 1980) ( pet i t i on t o reo p en cl ai m r equi r ed t o pr oper l yi nvoke j ur i s di ct i on of Ind u str ial C o m m issi o n ). ¶15 Ou r c o n c l u s i o n i s c o n s i s t e n twi t h t h e p u rp o s e o f wo r k e r s ’ c o mp e n s a t i o n l a w,
w hi ch i s “t o pr ot ectt he [w orker ] and t o r el i eve s oci etyof the bur den ca us ed byi ndus tr i al
acc i dent s . ” E n g lish v. Ind u s. C o m m ’n , 7 3 A ri z . 8 6 , 8 9 , 2 3 7 P .2 d 8 1 5 , 8 1 7 (1 9 5 1 ).

I t has been r epea t edl y hel d t hat t he A cts houl d r ece i ve a l i ber al i nt erpr et at i on i n favorof the empl oy ee. W her e ther e i s a doubt as t o t he [A ct ’ s ] cons t ruct i on, t hatcons t ruct i on s houl d be adopt ed w hi ch w i l l bes t eff ect i t s purpos e of compensa t i ng the injured em p loy ee fo r his loss o f e arn ing p o w er. I d. R earr angemental l ow s an empl oy ee t o pet i t i on fo ran i ncr eas e i n benef i t s s houl d a
co n d it ion w o rsen o r ea rnin g ca p ac ity d ec rea se. T o h o ld an A L J m ayred u ce an em p loy ee ’s
c o m p e n sa tio n a b se n t a n e m p lo y e r o r c a rrie r f ili n g a p ro p e r p e tit io n to re a rra n g e c o u ld di s cour age a n empl oy ee fr om s eeki ng r earr angement , and w oul d be contr aryt o t he r emedi al pu rpose of the w orkers ’ com pen sat i on st atutes . ¶16 A tor al ar gum ent , t he U ni ver s i t y cont ended t hat perm i t t i ng an A L J t o r educe
an aw ard i n the absence o f a pe t i t i on fi l ed b yt he em ploy er orcarr i er i s perm i ssi ble because
s uch a rul e w oul d pr om ot e j udi ci al eff i ci en cy . I tr eas ons that , beca us e the evi dence

512

p r e s e n te d a t th e h e a rin g w o u ld b e sim ilar r e g a rd les s o f w h ich p a rtyf

iled th e p e tit io n , itis
m o re eff i ci entfort he A L J t o addr es s the empl oy ee’ s earni ng capa ci t yde novo. W e ar e unconvi nced. A l t hough t he evi dence pr es ent ed coul d be si m i l ar , i t i s not nece s s ar i l ys o, nor
w oul d i tnece s s ar i l y be pr es ent ed or ar gued i n t he s ame manner t han i f t he empl oy ee di d not have t o guar d agai ns t a r educt i on i n benef i t s . M or eover , any benef i t to jud ici al ef

fi ci ency do es not outw e igh the ri sk of inadeq uate not i ce, the p oli cygo al s of t he w orkers ’ compensa t i on s y s t em, ort he r equi r ement s of R 20- 5- 134, A r i z. A dm i n. C ode. ¶17 B eca us e the doctr i ne o f re s j udi cat a pr ecl uded the A L J fr om r educi ng M ei ners’ s w orkers ’ com pen sat i on ben efi t s, w e set asi de t he aw ard. T hu s, w e do no tadd res s M ei ners’ s r em ai ning argum ents .

J
. W I L L I A M B R A M M E R , J R
. , J udge CO NC UR RI NG:

PE T E R J
. E C K E R ST R O M , Pr es i di ng J udge

PH I L I P G
. E SPIN O SA , J udge